Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 83

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has lots of uncited statements, with one statement tagged since March 2012. It also has too much detail, with over 10,000 words in the article. I think some places like "First years", "Early career", and several sections of "Commentator, controversy and personal life" can be summarised more effectively so the article can be more concise. Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand WP:GACR, I think this fails each of points 1a, 1b, 2b, and 3b. I would demote it to start-class as I'm doubtful about it meeting either of the B-class or C-class requirements, but that's another matter. My problem with the article is statistics. I don't see any need for the tables in the later sections, which fail the list incorporation part of point 1b. The tables are an obvious statistical excess, but even worse is the way statistics are used in the county and Test career sections. It seems as if large portions of narrative were derived from statistical information, and the reader is overwhelmed by averages, scores, totals, and strike rates.

For example, On 8 and 9 June 1967, he made his highest Test score of 246 not out against India on his home ground of Headingley. Batting for 573 minutes, Boycott struck thirty fours and a six at a strike rate of 44.32. He began his innings slowly, taking six hours over his first 106 runs; he scored 17 in the first hour and 8 in the second. That is followed by a lengthy and uninteresting piece about slow scoring and being dropped from the team. Why not simply say: He made his highest Test score of 246 not out against India at Headingley in 1967, but his slow scoring frustrated the selectors who dropped him from the team, partly in response to media pressure, and then move on to the next match he played in? That would be more than sufficient.

I entirely agree with Z1720 about excessive detail in the "Commentator, controversy and personal life" section. The piece about domestic violence is completely unbalanced. It begins and ends with single-sentence paragraphs which sandwich a bloated account of his conviction and its aftermath. That fails point 3b. In addition, the fifth paragraph needs three citations (point 2b). The whole sub-section should be rewritten and condensed.

If the article was being nominated at WP:GAN now, I think it should be immediately refused because of point 3 in WP:QF—it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. Those would include {{cleanup}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{citation needed}}, and {{clarify}} of the examples given.

I support the proposal to demote the article. ReturnDuane (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This perfectly good article has been polluted with a small amount of WP:OR. I'll remove it now. There is no reason to delist the article, which is well-written, well-structured, and thoroughly cited. There is no reason to think the tables excessive; a man who gets to world standard in a sport can very reasonably and in an encyclopedic manner have his performance illustrated in tabular form: it's far clearer and less space-consuming than writing it all out in text, and arguably less usual too. The table of partners is less common, but it clearly illustrates his exceptional performance, and it is reliably sourced. The article cannot be described as table-heavy, either.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the text changes suggested by ReturnDuane but I've made them anyway for the sake of harmony: it's basically just a matter of opinion on Wikipedia style and appropriate amount of detail, not a GA matter (and certainly not a GAR issue). I've cut nearly 10,000 bytes of text from the article.

I've added citations to one paragraph. I believe the article is now in a tidy and good state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, I've looked further into the matter of list incorporation, which is an important component of CR1b. It leads to WP:NOTSTATS, which is a site policy, and I think this article must breach that policy because it is overrun with statistics, especially in the narrative, as I outlined above. While I make that point, I must admit I'm not sure about the extent to which NOTSTATS applies, so I'll keep an open mind on it for the present.

There is, perhaps, another issue concerning the use of Boycott's own written works as sources, because they account for more than 10% of the citations. It could be argued that much of the content dealing with controversial topics is skewed in his favour. Having said that, his biographer Leo McKinstry does seem to present a balanced view. ReturnDuane (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing. The NOTSTATS thing is about making articles overwhelmingly statistical, whereas this article is, as you have noted, rather textual (and possibly long-winded at that). I've cut down the text, but the stats remain a small component of the article, and I think an entirely reasonable one. If we were going to cut down any table it would be to reduce the details of the opening partnerships to say the top ten partners, but even they are so remarkable that this not-at-all-sporty editor is impressed. As for having primary sources for 10% of the citations, that seems pretty reasonable as a ratio; if it were 66%, we'd be rather more concerned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I have tagged some other places in the article which will need a citation with a "citation needed" template. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, particularily in the "Risks management" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix what I can. Please tag or list all issues requiring attention. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the two I could find · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: I added citation needed tags per the above request. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed those as being obvious, but obvious is in the eye of the beholder. Should be possible to find refs, but may be a little tedious. You tagged one as dubious, but I cannot see why, as it falls within the definition of a muti-level dive. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations, clarified where I thought it would be useful, added a few links, and removed one or two claims that I could not find any source for. Please take a look and see if anything else is needed. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Citation concerns resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has multiple sources. However, most, if not all, of these sources are from the same source, just from different parts of the source. Thus it should need to cite other sources as well instead of just citing different parts of the same source.

I'm a bit confused by this nomination. This is currently citing 4 distinct sources - Conley 1998, Polemis 1968, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, and Garland 1999. All the sources look reliable to me, and the article looks to be about a comprehensive as it can be on an ancient figure this obscure. The GA nominator Iazyges has not been notified as is recommended in the instructions at the header at WP:GAR, nor has the primary author Cplakidas. I think this should be closed as keep unless actual major problems with this article and the good article criteria are identified. Hog Farm _Talk 20:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally do not see any other citations except those from different parts of the same book. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is "Polemis 1968, p. 46; ODB, "Doukas" (A. Kazhdan, A. Cutler), pp. 655–656." So there's one citation to Polemis, and another to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. The next one is "Polemis 1968, pp. 47–48; Conley 1998, p. 52.". So another citation to Polemis, but there's a citation added as well for Conley 1998. You then have " Polemis 1968, p. 47; Garland 1999, p. 171.", so a citation to Polemis and one to Garland 1999. [4] covers "Polemis 1968, p. 47; Garland 1999, pp. 173–174, 176; Conley 1998, p. 52." so there's three sources being cited there. Refs 5 and 6 only cite Polemis. Reference [7] is to Conley, and then [8] is Polemis again. So different parts of Polemis are cited 7 times, Conley 1998 three times, Garland 1999 twice, and then the ODB once. Yes, this is a bit heavy use of Polemis 1968, but not to the extent that this should be delisted. I wonder if the way most of the references are bundled is causing issues with whatever device you are reading this on, so you're only seeing Polemis, which is the first entry in all of the bundled citations. Hog Farm _Talk 21:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see it. Yeah then I agree this doesn't really meet the requirements for delisting. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains uncited statements. The "Music" section is underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provided link to Brown University Library's Digital Repository Feickus (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Feickus: There's still some uncited statements in the article. Would you be willing to address them? Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 00:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied this up. Some of it was simply thoughtless splitting of cited paragraphs; there was a small amount of simple OR added post-GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for doing this. There are still some unresolved "citation needed" tags in the article. I do not think the three-paragraph quote in "Flight testing" is necessary and might be a copyright concern: I suggest that this is summarised as an unquoted prose instead. Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Concerned resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 00:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited sections, particularily entire paragraphs in the "History of fieldwork" section. The "History of fieldwork" needs to be updated, as it currently stops at 2012. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important topic: I'll take a look at it. — hike395 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Field work on the ice and in the ocean next to the ice seems to have tailed off around 2014 (I cannot find sources past that). It appears that aerial surveys and satellites are now the dominant data sources. I've added a new subsection about those, to round out the history. I've also trimmed back the unsourced trivia in the section.

Still working on the overall article. As usual, marking sentences with {{cn}} would be helpful for me. — hike395 (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: My citation concerns seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What I've done is reorganize the sections to be parallel to the Thwaites Glacier GA, added newer references throughout, cleaned up the lede to reflect the rest of the article, and change the image choice to support the material in the article. I think we're now back to GA-level quality. — hike395 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, particularly in the "In popular culture" section. Lots of critical commentary is missing about the article, including the poem's reception and analysis of themes or writing style. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the article a bit to cite unsourced claims and re-organize some information. I also deleted the entire 'in popular culture' section, since it seemed too trivial to be worth sourcing -- especially in context with a legacy like Orphan Annie and Raggedy Ann! I'd say the "Poem" section includes plenty of analysis of the poem's writing style. I also personally think the article is OK for breadth without much analysis of themes; there is an explanation that it gives a moral about obedience, and it is just a four-stanza children's poem. There's definitely still room for expansion in the "impact" section, but with these edits I think the article is no longer so far from the GA criteria that it needs to be delisted. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, particularly in the "Satellite data sets" section. There is an orange "update" banner from 2022 on top of the "Changes due to global warming" section: has this been resolved? Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Unfortunately no - so unless anyone has the time and energy to summarise IPCC AR6 section 4.2.1.1 Observed Changes in Precipitation from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-4/ I think the article is no longer good Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to it shortly. E_F⁵ 19:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: and @Chidgk1: I've removed all uncited (and some weirdly promotional WikiHow links), I'll get to the "need update" banner shortly. How does it look now? E_F⁵ 19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Thanks for doing this: it looks a lot better. There was an unresolved citation needed tag, and I added a second one. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues seem resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good article though, would be shame to delete! Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellycrak88: WP:GAR is a discussion on whether the article meets the good article criteria. If it is delisted, the article will still remain on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find citations. --Chronicler Frank (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of it already have citation. Do you mind to take look at it once again Agus Damanik (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agus Damanik: I added two cn tags. After looking at the lead, I think a brief sentence or two should be added about his cultural depictions. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

already done the lead Agus Damanik (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first cn, is that the citation is the quote itself. Agus Damanik (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thomas Kinsella (translator), The Táin, Oxford University Press, 1969, pp. 156–158 Agus Damanik (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agus Damanik: Does the citation verify that the subsequent quote is "The most elaborate description of his appearance"? I would also suggest putting "— Thomas Kinsella (translator), The Táin, Oxford University Press, 1969, pp. 156–158" into a footnote. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand. In my opinion, it means the tain is the most elaborate description and it shown by the tain itself. Or did you mean we need citation that the Tain is the most elaborate one? Agus Damanik (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agus Damanik: Yes. Wikipedia cannot state that the quoted text is the most elaborate description: that would be original research. Instead, a source needs to state that the quoted description is the most elaborate, and that source cited in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any resource that say most elaborate, but i find other reference. Do you mind to make it footnote, cause i don't know how. Thank you Agus Damanik (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agus Damanik, see WP:HELPCITE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements throughout the article. The "Filmography" section has had a "more sources needed" orange banner since 2019. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied this up and split off the Filmography. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Uncited statements have been sourced or removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. The results are as follows: 1 Hold and 4 Keep. The arguments here were long and reasonable. Some argued that length doesn't matter, while others argued that "personality" should be removed. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is excessively long, about 17000 words. It also has some slight WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, what are those WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I don’t think there are any significant NPOV issues. However, in terms of MOS, sentences like 'On 10 March 1985, Chernenko died.' may convey an unnecessarily emphatic tone. Overall, the tone throughout could be improved to sound more encyclopedic. While I initially said there were no NPOV issues, some examples, such as 'He would stop to talk to civilians on the street, forbade the display of his portrait at the 1985 Red Square holiday celebrations, and encouraged frank and open discussions at Politburo meetings,' come across as slightly biased and could benefit from a more neutral phrasing. And yes I used ChatGPT to fix my own phrasing. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 07:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nom seems to be working on this, having spun out General secretaryship of Mikhail Gorbachev. There are also four citation needed tags that should be resolved (although I just added three of them and none seem particularly hard to rectify). charlotte ^👸🎄 06:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNs fixed by @LastJabberwocky (and me). charlotte ^👸🎄 01:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All Tomorrows No Yesterdays do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I intend on summarizing the Leader of the Soviet Union section.but that's about it All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 @Queen of Hearts @3E1I5S8B9RF7 any further comments? All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 06:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're working on summarising that section, no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't see any major issues with the article to begin with. To me, the reassessment was unnecessary. The article is long, but considering the importance of Gorbachev on history, it deserves this length.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3E1I5S8B9RF7, I managed to summarise Genghis Khan, one of the most consequential figures in history, to FA standard in less than 10,000 words. This article has over 17,000. The length is simply not justifiable within Wikipedia summary style guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Genghis Khan is a good comparison; there is bound to be more available detail on a modern political figure than one of the 12–13th centuries, no matter how iconic. Some 20th C examples which are featured/good... Nelson Mandela 14,788 words, Jimmy Carter 15,286 words, Franklin D. Roosevelt 14,331 words, Winston Churchill 14,739 words. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formally putting down a delist; no work has been done to slim down the general secretaryship section, and 17k words is far too long for any article. 13–14k would be a much better ballpark, and if it could be slimmed down even further that would be great. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with thanks (as always) to Chiswick Chap. charlotte ^👸♥ 10:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a long article, but it's also a biography, which is one of those types of articles perhaps not as amenable to summary style as others. The obvious option for that would be to spin off the sections of chronology (Early life and education, Early CPSU career, Secretary of the Central Committee of CPSU, Leader of the Soviet Union (1985-1991), Unraveling of the USSR, and Post-USSR life), either together or individually (or a mix). Is there appetite for this? CMD (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I again have to repeat, 17,000 words don't bother me in this example. The article deserves this length, considering the major changes that Gorbachev made on history and the high amount of sources that cover him.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a workable yardstick, if we treated article length as a function of impact and source number we'd end up producing books. CMD (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've cut down the tagged over-long section from 4,800 to under 4,000 words, and copy-edited other sections. The article does not seem overlong really; it's far from being the longest biography. I think splitting out the main sections of his biography would be a strange thing to do in a biography article, and I can assure you, having just tried, that the material cannot readily be condensed much without discarding substantial and useful material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold. I am still concerned about the article's length. I would WP:SPINOUT his ideology, move some of "Leader of the Soviet Union (1985-1991)" to General Secretaryship of Mikhail Gorbachev, move some of "August coup and government crises" to 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, remove "Personality" (most Wikipedia biographies don't have this anymore), and merge "Reactions" with "Legacy" (reactions is mostly people commenting on Gorbachev's legacy). Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that concern is not outwith the GACR as there isn't a hard limit in policy. However:
    • Have split out the Ideology; that has cut another 700 words from the total, down to 15,660 words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Leader of the Soviet Union": reduced to "main" link (existing) with summary. That saves another 3,700 words, down to 11,900 in total.
    • "August coup and government crises": we're down amongst the weeds (minor tweaks), but reduced to "further" link" (existing) with summary. That saves another 400 words, down to about 11,500 in total. The article is now shorter than those of the major figures above, so it's time to stop cutting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GA? 1a states "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience;" In my opinion, the length of this article causes the prose not to fulfil the concise requirement, and the level of detail makes the article difficult for a broad audience to understand. Z1720 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well it's a lot shorter now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My above suggestions were about the article version that was live when my comment was posted. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've implemented ALL your suggested changes, cutting the article from ~220,000 bytes to 169,000 bytes. Napoleon is ~190,000 bytes, for comparison. It is well within 'normal' length parameters now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work has been done so far to make the article more concise. I think there's still work to be done. I don't like using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Earth, classified as one of Wikipedia's most important articles, is under 9,000 words. Napoleon was also demoted from its GA status in 2021 and A-class status in May 2024, so I don't know if this article should be compared to that article.

While most of my suggestions were implemented, others were not (Personality section and reactions sections are still in the article). I am happy to discuss if they should be removed/merged.

• No issue with Personality/Reactions, those'll be done now.
  • Personality s/section removed.
  • Reactions: much of this is just 'I'm very sorry to hear that' (no encyclopedic value), so cut. I've folded the small amount remaining into Legacy.

• I think some sections are too specific in its detail right now because a lot has been written about him, and a concise article on a broad topic like this person would be more general in its information, while more detailed information would be in daughter articles. Upon a closer reading of the article, I see more information that can be spun out or removed. Some examples include Gorbachev's height and weight, extensive detail on who sent his family their condolences after his death (which is expected behaviour after a notable statesman has died), and Gorbachev's opinion on several major events in the 2010s in the "2008–2022: growing criticism of Putin and foreign policy remarks" section (including almost yearly quotes on his opinion on Russia's invasions of Ukraine). If editors want I can do a detailed look through the article and suggest other places where the article is not concise. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on this stepwise approach. However,
    • Condolences have gone already (Reactions cut).
    • Personal life: Height, weight etc: gone, section trimmed.
    • Death and Funeral sections trimmed and merged.
    • "2008–2022: growing criticism of Putin and foreign policy remarks": radically cut down.
    • In same vein, have proactively trimmed "1991–1999" and "1999-2008" sections.
    • These edits have cut the article further from 169,000 bytes to 134,000 bytes. Over 40% of the text has been cut since I started on this; 17,000 words have been reduced to 9,000. This is not at all an unusual length for articles.
• Keep Length concerns are resolved, no uncited text found, no unreliable sources found. Z1720 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @All Tomorrows No Yesterdays as the one who started the GAR; if they (or anyone else) don't have objections, I think this can be closed as keep. charlotte ^👸♥ 22:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 23:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited sections, paragraphs, and sentences. Several sections are quite short, and probably need to be expanded. The "History" section seems to end in 1987. This should include more recent events. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've tidied this up, removed editorial, weeded the images, trimmed the lists, and added a ridiculous number of citations. It's not perfect but it'll pass muster. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: The "History" section still seems to stop at 1987. Any major topics that should be included in the article about the topic post-1990s? Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a bit soon to document the history of the 21st century, but I've added a section on that century, looking at strategy and major trends. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for doing this. After reading the "Future" section, I think some of that information could possibly be updated or moved up to "History". For example, the Oman botanical garden is cited to a 2011 source, so has it already been built? Once this is complete I think this article will probably be a "keep" for me. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2025 the Oman website, now cited, is still in the future tense, so it seems the garden has not been constructed. I've redistributed the 'future' materials. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, thoughts? (please  mention me on reply) charlotte ^👸♥ 02:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concerns are addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say this article goes in-depth; there was a ton of uncited info a few days earlier and now it's very short. I was waiting until after it was on the POTD to do this, as I don't want to be a party-pooper. :) E_F⁵ 18:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was waiting for a week after I posted to the talk page, but yes, delist per nom. charlotte ^👸♥ 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EF5 and Queen of Hearts: "very short" is not a reason to delist an article, unless it is shown that the article does not cover the main aspects of the subject. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Already fix a few thing. I think the reassessment can be canceled Agus Damanik (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing any glaring issues remaining, and as AirshipJungleman29 says length on its own is not a failure reason assuming it's beyond a stub (and this article is about 600 words so easily long enough). I think this can probably be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There's not much information about his academic career or personal life. There are some questionable sources, like ref 36: whyevolutionistrue.com. Z1720 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of whyevolutionistrue.com is just to quote the definitely-notable Jerry Coyne so the source is fine for that purpose.

Keep: I've done a lot of tidying-up, have added multiple sources, and have rewritten quite a bit. The limited detail on personal life and career reflect the sources, which all focus on his philosophy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, and an unresolved "more sources needed" orange banner from 2023. There are numerous one-sentence paragraphs in the article, which negatively affect the MOS:LAYOUT. These should be merged together and formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could give a more detailed description of the issues with the article, similar to a good article review, so me and others have a list of things we can go through and tick off. – Editør (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and attempted to fix the issues. Let me know if there are any further issues that need to be resolved. – Editør (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør: I have added citation needed tags to the places that need citations. The "Beliefs, interests, and charity work" has a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged together: I suggest that an editor read through and reorganise this section, as it looks like these additions have been made piecemeal. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one or more sources for each citation needed tag and reorganized the section. – Editør (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Is there anything else? – Editør (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concerns resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 21:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements in the "Investigation" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've removed the uncited information that I couldn't find a source for and added sources for things I could find a source for. How does it look? E_F⁵ 21:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Added a citation needed tag for a paragraph in "Investigation". Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, added sources. — E_F⁵ 21:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 14:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article heavily relies on primary sources; WP:ABOUTSELF wouldn't apply here, as it says such sources can be used for info about the subject as long as it's uncontroversially talking about itself (Y) and not used in excess. (N) 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 11:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think that it needs to be delisted at the moment per the arguments given in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Neighbours 30th Anniversary/1 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Additionally, several of the primary sources are then backed up by secondary sources. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 18:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose in the article, including entire paragraphs and an orange "more citations needed" orange banner at the top of "The Night Watch" section. There are also some unreliable sources used in the article like IMDB; with the extensive amount of literature written about him, I think it would be a good idea to replace some of these website sources with higher-quality publications, but at least remove the unreliable ones. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I have time, though as I said in the other section (where is that now??), the ARTICLE IS CERTAINLY far BETTER than when it passed GA. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, that's on Talk:Rembrandt.

Z1720, far be it from me to take over from Johnbod on a history of art topic, but something does need to be said here. The article is indeed of good quality; the letter-of-the-law approach is seen in an instance like this - a really nice article, well-constructed, well-illustrated, well-written, and almost completely cited - to be about to give the wrong answer, viz., a few refs could be added so it's not a GA, bang. That really isn't a particularly forgiving approach, or to put it another way, the (at random?) choice of this article seems especially unfortunate and inappropriate. If this gets towards a timeout, then let me know (either of you) and I'll add the needed refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I should get round to it, but by all means add to it, refs especially, if you can. Presumably the The Night Watch article has refs, which I haven't explored yet. I do have books on R though. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see The Night Watch is oddly thin on the content of the painting itself, which it would be good to expand on. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap and Johnbod: When reviewing articles for GA status, the article is reviewed based on its current version, not how much it has improved from before. It is also reviewed based on what the GA criteria are today. If there are concerns about how I review articles, editors can post them on the GA talk page. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we may need to do that, again. The point is not what the letter of the criteria say, we can read, but what the proper interpretation should be on the balance of all the facts in a situation, which are not limited to CN tags, nor should those be considered specially important. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, Keep, for the reasons stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added citation needed tags, and the orange banner on top of the "The Night Watch" section still needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That's frankly a misunderstanding: not helpful and not necessary, I can see the gaps for myself and so can Johnbod, and that section is the one place where we all agree things should be improved. What we don't agree is that such a thing demands a GAR: on that we differ fundamentally, and splashing CN tags about won't help resolve that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, I've done a little tidying, reffed all the obvious places, and a basic rewrite of The Night Watch. There was only one passing mention of IMDB (on the back of another ref, about publicity for an exhibition): I've removed it - really not worth flagging up. Johnbod can certainly do better but for the immediate purpose here that should be enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Great - I hope will do more later, but all the issues raised above are sorted. Many thanks, So, Keep. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your hard work. There's one citation needed template to resolve before I can recommend a keep. It is for the sentence that starts with, "Also notable are his dramatic and lively presentation of subjects". Once resolved, editors can ping me and I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; I removed the one unreliable source I saw since it already had another cite. charlotte ^👸♥ 00:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems good now - but really we ought to find material for a 4th para to the lead. Probably on his style. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Essentially a withdrawn by nominator. Hog Farm _Talk 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a lot of post-2017 information: a search for sources found lots of new sources profiling him and his career which should include more recent works and milestones. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know what my plans for the weekend are then... - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun adding post-2017 info, including his appointment to design director of Aspinal of London, new collaborations, and the move into interior design. - JuneGloom07 Talk 05:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the sections have now been updated with new info. I did add to the lead, but I will update it a bit further. Are there any other major issues preventing this article from maintaining its GA status? - JuneGloom07 Talk 05:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuneGloom07: A sentence or two of his more recent work (post-2018) should be included in the lead. Other then that, a quick skim does not show additional concerns. I recommend splitting up the "Career" section using level 3 headings. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've updated the lead to reflect the new info and added subheadings to the career section. - JuneGloom07 Talk 05:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Real4jyy (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA articles relating to musicians must include the a Musical style and influences section, possibly titled "Artistry". Without this it is not comprehensive, per WP:WPMAG. For example, A Good Time mentions Afropop as one of his genres while many Nigerian sources and an interview show his inspirations. Best, 750h+ 09:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I can definitely include an artistry section to the article, I will work on the article this weekend. Thanks for your comments.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Versace. You can add a word or two on his musical influences as well. I am following this page.HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an artistry section to the article. Please let me know your thoughts about it.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

citation style is a little inconsistent throughout and some websites should be italicized but i think the article for the most part is better 750h+ 11:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Article meets GA features. Not having a musical style is not a feature and WP:WPMAG is just an essay. - Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have minor issues with the Artistry section. It gives the impression that western musical influences are at par with local singers in shaping his career but that is not very factual. Aside from multiple references that clearly show bigger impacts of local artists such as Dbanj, Don Jazzy, 2Face, etc on his career 12, 3, he has also narrated this local influence in the lyrics of his songs, something I can't recall he ever doing for 50 Cent, etc. There should be a balance in the tone of the section that show he isn't an "Americanized Nigerian singer" that came into afrobeats. In addition, I propose having at last 2 local musicians mentioned as influences as well, and they should be written first. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @HandsomeBoy: I'm not sure why you aren't editing the article. Is there something preventing you from adding Davido's musical influences to the article? I'm curious because you're complaining here instead of working on improving the article. Just because Davido mentioned Ja Rule and 50 Cent as artists he grew up listening to doesn't mean he cited them as musical influences. As a matter of fact, the artistry section doesn't list any of his musical influences. I really don't know why you derived the false narrative about depicting Davido as an Americanized Nigerian singer.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Versace1608: actually, it's not their responsibility to add to the article, they are a reviewer: reviewers usually highlight their concerns but it's not their responsibility to edit the article, but they can if they want. In this case HandsomeBoy is allowed to bring up as many complaints as they want but they don't have to edit to the article. 750h+ 13:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is HandsomeBoy the reviewer? Weren't you the one who created the GA reassessment page and notified both me and HandsomeBoy about the issues you had with the article? Am I missing something here?  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, i opened the reassessment (by the way, when you open a reassessment, the script automatically notifies the GA nominator, relevant projects, and other main editors). also, from what i've seen above, HandsomeBoy is only giving reviews and has only commented on issues they have on the article (they don't look like they'd like to edit, from what i've seen above), while you committed to helping fix the article. best, 750h+ 14:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  HandsomeBoy is the page creator. You cannot conclude that he does not like to edit simply because he decided to leave a comment instead of making edits to the page. You should give him a chance to respond to the questions I asked him before drawing conclusions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  page creator or not, he doesn't have to edit the article. however, we can ask @HandsomeBoy: if he'd like to edit the article or not and address the concerns he listed. 750h+ 14:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not going to be adding anymore info to the artistry section. Whoever feels like the artistry section needs more info should edit the article and add the info. You requested for an artistry section to be added to the article, and I did just that. Someone else mentioned that the page you cited to justify this reassessment isn't a policy, just someone else's opinion. I see that you have no rebuttal to that. If HandsomeBoy has issues with the article, he can edit it. There's no law preventing him from editing the article and he is not the reviewer.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Versace1608, I am leaving the article to you since I have removed "your important additions" according to you. I think having two editors trying to restore a GA looks difficult, however I am sorry if I scattered things for you. I don't like it when a Nigerian article is delisted. I would vote keep when things are sorted out, when your "GA-dream article meets GA features. You can revert my edits too. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize if you feel like I did not appreciate the contributions you made to the article. It wasn't my intention to offend you bro. I just feel like you removed a few vital info from the article. Davido's musical start as a member of KB International is one of the information you removed. I personally believe this info is vital to the article. You also removed info about some of Davido's singles from the lede. Someone falsely listed Davido as the most charitable musician in Nigeria without backing it up with any evidence. The lack of an artistry section was the only issue that 750h+ had with the article. I believe I have addressed this particular issue despite HandsomeBoy's comments. Please feel free to edit the article and add new info you feel is important. At this point, the article needs more info, not less.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't see any issue again. The GA [imporver] has solved the problem raised by the noninator. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I added a citation needed tag to the article. I also don't think Bellanaija is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Z1720, BellaNaija is a reliable source for entertainment news. A few Nigerian editors have reached consensus regarding its reliability and added it to WP:RSNG. Our discussion can be seen here.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article seems to address major topics and my citation concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]